The ebuild for mod_auth_kerb only supports apach2 and is only at 4.11. 4.13 is the latest. I've written an updated version, included support for apache-1.x (as needed by myself and how I discoverred the state of the ebuild). We, Indiana University, would like to return this code back to the tree but I'm not certain the process. Feel free to contact me for the updated ebuild. Cheers, -Dave Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3.
gee whiz id really love to chase you around on this, but if you're not going to attach it here, forget it. i took all the time and initative to create this ebuild, on my own free time, for free, for the benefit of the community... so why cant you do the same?
what i meant was, please attach it here and i'll merge it.
sorry if you feel damaged, personally, for what i said in #1 but you really should have just attached your changes in the first place.
Dave -- Please accept my apologies on behalf of the entire Gentoo team for woodchip's behavior. That is not how we like to treat our userbase and I'm sorry you had to be subject to such rudeness. If you would prefer, please send me the ebuild directly at klieber@gentoo.org and I will take care of sending it on to the appropriate folks. --kurt
If you post an inline patchfile generated with 'diff -u', that will be the fastest way to have your changes adopted.
Created attachment 14949 [details, diff] Unified diff between 4.13.ebuild and 4.13.ebuild The other two files reuired for the ebuild are the same as the original. `cp files/11_mod_auth_kerb.conf files/13_mod_auth_kerb.conf` is all we've done for the .conf. The patch for apache2 is untouched. We don't currently use apache2 however would be willing to install and test the build with apache2. We are required to include our copyright into all code submissions we release. We are also interested in maintaining this package and a few more we'll be releasing soon if the current maintainer is interested in handing it off.
We are required to include our copyright into all code submissions we release. We are also interested in maintaining this package and a few more we'll be releasing soon if the current maintainer is interested in handing it off. If so, we have apropriate changelog entried from our portage cvs. If not, we can continue to follow this process as we will be maintaining it for our own use as well. I might recomend making this process more aparent as the "way to do things". My initial post was asking how to go about getting code back to you. Additional notes in the comments field for the attachment. Cheers, -Dave
most things look ok -- nothing to get into too big of a twist over. some things do puzzle me though. - -ldl -lkrb5 -lcom_err -lk5crypto -c ${PN}.c || die + -ldl -lkrb5 -lcom_err -lk5crypto -c mod_auth_kerb.c || die; ^^ I dont understand why you do that. you've also got '\' on the end of many lines. not neccesary. i wouldnt particulary mind giving up maintainership of this ebuild, which i myself wrote. i dont really use it so it makes some sense to have somebody who *does* use take over maintainership. however im not sure how you're going to do this without getting Gentoo Developer account, otherwise you're going to need a middleman to go through every time you have a change. I do not understand why you've renamed 11_mod_auth_kerb.conf to 13_mod_auth_kerb.conf. This change is bogus: -SRC_URI="mirror://sourceforge/modauthkerb/${P}.tar.gz" +SRC_URI="mirror://sourceforge/modauthkerb/mod_auth_kerb-4.13.tar.gz" I dont particulary have a problem with this change: -KEYWORDS="~x86" +KEYWORDS="x86" .... you must be happy with the way its working to make that change, so thats fine with me. Ok, now for the big one. This is not permitted, as far as I know: +# Copyright 2003 The Trustees of Indiana University As far as I know, our policy permits -only- copyright assignments to Gentoo Technologies, Inc, and thats it. I'll need to make some cleanups to this before I can put it into CVS. But I really need you to reconsider the Copyright assignment issue. After all this is just an ebuild file, and there is -no- other ebuild in the portage tree which attributes copyrights to anybody else other than Gentoo Linux. Also, it somewhat irks me because, as I say, I *wrote* the ebuild and had/have no problem attributing the copyright to Gentoo Tech. Inc. I dont think its fair that you might be able to get an attribution, whereas I have -none- except for a small blurb in the changelog saying that I in fact did write it. Would you settle for a statement in the ChangeLog saying that the updates in the latest ebuild are from "your name @ your organization" ? Again, sorry for the attitude earlier. You certainly didnt catch me at the best time. I admit though that I found the subject line "both outdated and incomplete" mildly insulting. Im not talking huge, painful insult here, Im talking poor tact, thats all. Cheers Mate.
My apologies for the misunderstanding. The field in the zilla that becomes the subject asks for a brief description. That is all it was, I've never met you and certainly have no reason to belittle your efforts. As for notice of copyright. We've used other ebuilds holding multiple copyright as our example. If you'd like I can find the list we generated of multiple copyright ebuilds in portage that we used as examples when we started discussion of gifting back the ebuilds from our own portage tree. We're required as an educational institution to include that line, it in no way affects the license of the work. It there for no reason other than to ensure Indiana University is credited with the work. The variations in syntax we've used were mostly due to the original ebuild being used only from our own portage tree. We wanted to start with something very small like this before we started releasing the larger works we have in progress. In the future, if we're able to continue as contributors, we'll ensure our team is familar with the ebuild developers document and correct syntax usage. Cheers, -Dave
Ebuilds with copyright owned by other people are a mistake. If we don't own copyright on ebuilds and other core pieces of Gentoo, we cannot defend ourselves legally and it puts us in a very, very uncomfortable position. I am willing to have this placed on the agenda item for the next manager's meeting and have asked Kurt to do so.
Ok, I guess we have to revoke our submission then. Our lawyers insist we include that as we are a state funded org. I'm not sure what the confusion of ownership is exactly as Gentoo is still clearly listed as the owner of the document and Indiana University as a contributor. We've cleared this process on a number of other projects of various license including the GPL. This may be a major hit to contributions for the distribution as any .org or .edu that is paying people to develop for Gentoo are going to require this. I hope your policy changes in the future. Is there some process for removing this from bugzilla ? Or will you handle that? Cheers, -Dave
As far as I know, copyright law does not allow multiple people to own the same pieces of something. Additionally, copyright law places restrictions on the length of what can be "owned"; what you are suggesting is that you own 28 lines of the ebuild and we own 17 lines (if I'm counting correctly). I'm not sure that leaves either of us in a place to enforce copyright. What you need to know is that we must protect ourselves. I am not sure what the justification for your employer wanting to own copyright on it is; it sounds suspicious to me, frankly. It puts us in a position where we likely cannot enforce copyrights on integral parts of Gentoo. Many projects are working with a large codebase where they can likely enforce copyright based on the fact that they still hold copyright on much of what the contributed work touches - with something as small as an ebuild, it's very sketchy. I am sorry that we were not able to work this out to your satisfaction.
closed.
Method tells me Daniel is going to consult his lawyer about this kind of situation, so we'll wait until then.
We now have forms to deal with this kind of situation. We'll be working on getting these out soon.
Any update on the resolution of this? chuck
Hey Chuck, Unfortunatly there does not appear to be a solution to the copyright issue. The form given to us includes a requirement for the surrender of copyright to Gentoo tech. That won't work for anyone paid by public funds (Universities, State/Federal Offices, etc). It would be illegal for us to contribute state funds, in the form of man hours, to any private entity. The inclusion of a shared copyright solves this problem. Without that, we simply cannot contribute anything as an official entity legally. We've simply maintained our own portage tree for the past year or so. Cheers, -Dave
Dave: can you (or someone else at IU) get in touch with drobbins about the shared copyright agreement? We finally got all that worked out and now have an agreement that can deal with shared copyright, but I don't have the details on it (Daniel does). It'd be great if we could get that in place and start committing IU's work to the tree.
Still no update?
What about an update?
Last I heard, the contract was in the hands of the IU lawyers. At this point, I believe we're waiting on them before we can continue.
Please re-open when legal issues are resolved. Thanks
